You are on page 1of 6

VOL.

154, SEPTEMBER 24, 1987 211


Korean Airlines, Co., Ltd. us. Court of Appeals

*
No. L-61418. September 24,1987.

KOREAN AIRLINES CO., LTD., petitioner, vs. HON.


COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. EDUARDO C.
TUTAAN, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of
Rizal, Branch V. Quezon City, AZUCENA and JANUARIO
TOMAS, respondents.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgments; Supreme Court,


not a trier of facts; Factual questions should be resolved by the
lower courts and the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction as a rule
to reverse the findings of the lower courts; Exceptions, not present
in case at bar.—Time and again we have stressed that this Court
is not a trier of facts. We leave these matters to the lower courts,
which have more opportunity and facilities to examine these
matters. We have no jurisdiction as a rule to reverse their
findings. The exception invoked is that there is a clear showing of
a grave abuse of discretion on their part, but we do not see it here.
Civil Law; Transportation; Contract of carriage; Damages;
Private respondent who was not allowed to board the plane
because her seat had already been given to another passenger
despite the fact that she had a confirmed ticket, is entitled to
damages.—We are satisfied from the findings of the respondent
court (and of the trial court) that the private respondent was, in
the language of the airline industry, "bumped off." She had a
confirmed ticket. She arrived at the airport on time. However, she
was not allowed to board because her seat had already been given
to another passenger. As a result, she suffered damages for which
the petitioner should be held liable.

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

212
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Korean Airlines, Co., Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals

Same; Same; Same; Absence of evidence in the record of any


rule requiring passengers to check in at least 40 minutes before
departure time.—There is no evidence in the record of any rule
requiring passengers to check in at least forty minutes before
departure time, as invoked by Torres. KAL admits that it has not
been able to cite any statutory or administrative requirement to
this effect. In fact, the alleged rule is not even a condition of the
plane ticket purchased by Azucena.
Same; Same; Same; Parties; Private respondent is a real party
in interest, and not the corporation, because she was suing in her
personal capacity; Reason.—The claim that the real party in
interest is the Gold N. Apparel Manufacturing Corporation and
not the private respondent is also untenable. Counsel for Azucena
Tomas declared at the trial that she was suing in her personal
capacity. In testifying about her participation in the said
corporation, she was only stressing her status as a respected and
well-connected businesswoman to show the extent of the prejudice
caused to her interests by the unjustified acts of the petitioner.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Petitioner airline acted in bad
faith in violating respondent's rights under their contract of
carriage and is liable for the injuries sustained by respondent;
Reduction of award of damages.—It is clear that the petitioner
acted in bad faith in violating the private respondent's rights
under their contract of carriage and is therefore liable for the
injuries she has sustained as a result. We agree with the Court of
Appeals, however, that the award should be reduced to
P50,000.00 for actual and compensatory damages, P30,000.00 for
moral damages, and P20,000.00 for attorney's fees, the exemplary
damages to be eliminated altogether.

PETITION to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

CRUZ, J.:

This is one of the many cases that have unnecessarily


clogged the dockets of this Court because they should not
have been brought to us in the first place.
The issues are mainly factual. They have been resolved
by the trial court, which has been affirmed by the
respondent court, except as to the award of damages, which
has been

213
VOL. 154, SEPTEMBER 24, 1987 213
Korean Airlines, Co., Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals

reduced. We see no reason why the decision had to be


elevated to us.
Time and again
1
we have stressed that this Court is not a
trier of facts. We leave these matters to the lower courts,
which have more opportunity and facilities to examine
these matters. 2We have no jurisdiction as a rule to reverse
their findings. The exception invoked is that there is a
clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion on their part,
but we do not see it here.
We are satisfied from the findings of the respondent
court (and of the trial court) that the private respondent
was, in the language of the airline industry, "bumped off."
She had a confirmed ticket. She arrived at the airport on
time. However, she was not allowed to board because her
seat had already been given to another passenger. As a
result, she suffered damages for which the petitioner
should be held liable.
Specifically, petitioner Korean Airlines (hereinafter
called KAL) issued to Azucena Tomas a plane ticket to Los
Angeles, California, U.S.A., on Flight No. KE 612 departing
from the Manila International Airport on July3
29, 1977, at
2:20 p.m. She paid the fare of P2,587.88 She and her
husband arrived
4
at the KAL check-in counter at 1:50 p.m,
of that date and presented her ticket to Augusto Torres,
Jr., who was in charge. Torres refused to check her in,5
saying that the Immigration Office was already closed.
Januario Tomas, her husband, rushed to the said office,
which was still open, and was told by the immigration
officer OR duty that his wife could still be cleared for
departure. Januario rushed back to Torres to convey this
information and asked that his wife be checked in. Torres
said this was no longer possible because her seat had
already been given to another passenger. His reason was
that Azucena had ar-

_______________

1 Chemplex, Inc. v. Pamatian, 57 SCRA 409; Ereñeta v. Bezore; 54


SCRA 13; Miguel v. Catalino, 26 SCRA 234.
2 Olango v. Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, 121 SCRA 338;
Tongoy v. Court of Appeals, 123 SCRA 99.
3 Rollo, p. 19.
4 Ibid.
5 Id.
214

214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Korean Airlines, Co., Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals

rived late and had not 6


checked in within forty minutes
before departure time.
There is no evidence in the record of any rule requiring
passengers to check in at least forty minutes before
departure time, as invoked by Torres. KAL admits that it
has not been able to cite 7any statutory or administrative
requirement to this effect. In fact, the alleged rule is not
even a condition of the plane ticket purchased by Azucena.
At the same time, KAL invokes the memorandum-
circular of February 24, 1975, issued by the Commission on
Immigration and Deportation which says that "all
passengers authorized to leave for abroad shall be required
to check in with the Immigration Departure Control Officer
at least thirty minutes before the scheduled departure."
The record shows that Azucena was ready to comply.
If, as Torres said, he gave Azucena's seat to a chance8
passenger thirty-eight minutes before departure time
instead of waiting for Azucena, then he was intentionally
violating the said circular. Significantly, it was proved he
was not telling the truth when he said the Immigration
Office was already closed although it was in fact still open
at the time the private respondents arrived. Moreover, the
immigration officer on duty expressed his willingness to
clear Azucena Tomas for departure, thus indicating that
she was well within the provisions of the memorandum-
circular. Torres' refusal to check her in was clearly
unjustified.
As it appeared later, the real reason why she could not
be checked in was not her supposed tardiness but the
circumstance that Torres had prematurely given her seat
to a chance passenger. That person certainly had less right
to prior accommodation than the private respondent
herself.
The claim that the real party in interest is the Gold N.
Apparel Manufacturing
9
Corporation and not the private
respondent is also untenable. Counsel for Azucena Tomas
declared at

_______________

6 Id., pp. 19-20.


7 KAL's Brief in the C.A., p. 34.
8 Rollo, pp, 27-28.
9 Id., pp. 72-76.

215

VOL. 154, SEPTEMBER 24, 1987 215


Korean Airlines, Co., Ltd vs. Court of Appeals

10
the trial that she was suing in her personal capacity. In
testifying about her participation in the said corporation,
she was only stressing her status as a respected and well-
connected businesswoman to show the extent of the
prejudice caused to her interests by the unjustified acts of
the petitioner.
It is clear that the petitioner acted in bad faith in
violating the private respondent's rights under their
contract of carriage and is therefore liable for the injuries
she has sustained as a result. We agree with the Court of
Appeals, however, that the award should be reduced to
P50,000.00 for actual and compensatory damages,
P30,000.00 for moral damages, and P20,000.00 for
attorney's fees, the exemplary damages to be eliminated
altogether.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the respondent
court is AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against the
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

     Teehankee (C.J.), Narvasa and Paras, JJ., concur.


     Gancayco, J., on leave.

Decision affirmed.

Note.—Liability of international common carriers is


governed primarily by New Civil Code. (Samar Mining Co.
vs. Nordeutscher Lloyd, 132 SCRA 529.)

——o0o——

________________

10 Id., pp. 28-29.

216
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like